People v. Carrasco
209 Cal. App. 4th 715
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defendant threw a ceramic statue through his mother's house window and then broke two of her car windows; the house was owned by his father, not the mother who allowed entry or stayed there.
- Damages: house repair cost $265; car window repairs cost $382; other vehicle damages were also noted but not owned by the mother.
- Information charged felony vandalism under § 594(a) for damages exceeding $400; two prior prison priors under § 667.5(b) were alleged.
- Trial split: jury convicted of vandalism with a finding that damages were $400 or more; priors admitted in a bifurcated bench trial.
- The trial court instructed on vandalism and an aggregation approach allowing total damages to exceed $400 when multiple acts occurred under one general impulse and plan.
- Appellant challenges aggregation legality, jury instructions, and the two § 667.5 enhancements; the appellate court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether damages from multiple vandalism acts may be aggregated | Bailey/Arthur V. support aggregation across victims | Damages from separate acts to different owners cannot be aggregated | Yes, aggregation allowed when acts were under one impulse/plan and not separate offenses. |
| Whether jury instructions properly instructed on aggregation and single impulse | Instructions correctly followed Bailey/Arthur V. | Instruction modification misleads on aggregation | No reversible error; CALCRIM 2900/2901 consistent with law. |
| Whether household definition was needed for aggregation | Aggregation unaffected by number of victims under Bailey. | Household definition could affect aggregation scope | Harmless error; aggregation permissible regardless of household count. |
| Whether two 667.5 enhancements were properly imposed on admission | Admissions covered elements of enhancements | Admission did not expressly cover all enhancement elements | Enhancements valid; admissions encompassed requisite elements. |
| Whether the court should have given misdemeanor vandalism instruction | Formal instruction on lesser offense required | No; record shows proper felony/misdemeanor distinction via damages | No reversible instructional error. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Arthur V., 166 Cal.App.4th 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (adopts Bailey doctrine to aggregate vandalism damages across incidents)
- People v. Bailey, 55 Cal.2d 514 (Cal. 1961) (aggregation when there is one plan/impulse)
- In re David D., 52 Cal.App.4th 304 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (discussed applicability of Bailey to multiple victims; held not aggregable when offenses are separate)
- People v. Ebner, 64 Cal.2d 297 (Cal. 1966) (principles of admissions extending to included elements)
- People v. Mosby, 33 Cal.4th 353 (Cal. 2004) (totality of circumstances for admissions to enhancements)
- Arthur V., 166 Cal.App.4th 61 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (articulates aggregation of damages when multiple victims under one plan)